The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the courts to permit defendants to file their written statements and the need to decide suits on merits rather than technicalities, allowing leniency in filing written statements and condoning delay in suitable cases.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 05.12.2022 in CS DJ 756/19, titled as "Yudhvir Singh vs. Virender Singh", whereby the application under Section 114 CPC r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 1908, seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.07.2022 closing the opportunity of the petitioner/defendant to file his written statement, was dismissed.

2. Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the amendment to the plaint was allowed on 22.02.2022.

3. Learned counsel submits that it was for the first time that subsequent to the allowing of the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908, the petitioner was impleaded as a necessary party as defendant No.2.

4. It was in pursuance to that order, that the copy of the amended plaint was directed to be supplied to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel submits that the copy of the plaint along with the documents were supplied on 04.03.2022 to the previous counsel, since the counsel had not appeared and was negligent, the petitioner/defendant did not come to know about the said service of the copies of the amended plaint and the documents attached thereto.

6. On realizing that the learned Trial Court has closed the opportunity to file the written statement on 27.07.2022, the petitioner/defendant No.2 filed his application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 before the Court on 14.08.2022.

7. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel further submits that it was for the first time on 16.09.2022 that the petitioner/defendant No. 2 was supplied with the copies of the plaint as also the documents annexed thereto.

8. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel submits that since the application under Order 47 was decided only on 05.12.2022, there was no occasion for the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file the written statement in the interregnum.

9. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order did not consider any of the aforesaid facts, and has ignored the fact that the present suit is one under the ordinary civil jurisdiction, whereby the Courts have treated the delay beyond the stipulated period leniently and have permitted litigants to file their written statement.

10. Per contra, Ms. Ashu Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that in pursuance of the learned Trial Court's order, the copy of the amendment plaint along with the documents appended thereto were supplied to the petitioner's counsel on 04.03.2022.

11. Ms. Arora, learned counsel submits that there is no explanation coming forth from the petitioner/defendant No.2 as to what prohibited the petitioner from filing his written statement from 04.03.2022 till 27.07.2022.

12. Ms. Arora, learned counsel also submits that even if one were to disregard the earlier supply of copies of the amended plaint on 04.03.2022, for abundant precaution, the fresh copies of the same were supplied yet again on 16.09.2022.

13. Ms. Arora, learned counsel submits that there is no reason whatsoever at all to explain the enormous delay occurring even subsequent to 16.09.2022. On that basis, Ms. Arora, learned counsel prays that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.

14. This Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties, as also considered the documents placed on record and the impugned order.

15. The learned Trial Court appears to have overlooked the fact that it was only vide the order dated 22.02.2022, and that too after the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 was allowed, for the first time the petitioner was impleaded as a necessary party and arrayed as defendant No.2.

16. The learned Trial Court has also perfunctorily overlooked the submissions made by the petitioner that the previous counsel stated to have been engaged by the petitioner/defendant No.2 had not filed his vakala